MovieChat Forums > The Constant Gardener (2005) Discussion > Probably been discussed before...

Probably been discussed before...

posted 16 years ago by Oceans300
1 reply | jump to latest

I found the ending to be quite hilarious actually, in a morbid way. Tessa is portrayed as this wonderful person who gives so much it's slightly annoying. The way she's presented as a morally glorified member of the press makes me think of her as a liberal stereotype almost. Then, through her actions, a drug that would have killed possibly millions is removed and people are saved. But not quite.

Given the lesser health care system and diet in the portrayed regions of Africa (compared to the US), I'm under the impression that most people who would have contracted tuberculosis would have died. Then, given that the drug wouldn't kill everyone who took it, what about the possibly millions of people it would have saved? Tessa was indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people and she was painted as a hero. Call me morbid but I find that pretty funny, actually.

[–] c-wilsoncroft 16 years ago

The point is that big phama companies are always racing to get their product on hte market first so they can control the supply of (potentialy) the most needed and available drug in the World. As the potential rewards are so high it is in their interests to get there forst - at any cost. If KDH (or whatever they were called) had to revise the drug's make-up they would have lost years in this race. Another global phama would then have been hot on the heals and pipped them at hte post, so to speak. It is unlikley that only KDH would have known about the looming pandemic of TB.